The Use of Language in the Cherry Orchard

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

The Use of Language in the Cherry Orchard Overview of Language in the play The style of language in the Cherry Orchard is very useful in establishing the characters, their views and personalities and the overall period of the play. For example, Ranyevskaya and Gayev's language is very dated showing their old-fashioned views and reluctance to change, whilst Trofimov's language is more modern, showing his forward thinking. The servants speak in only a more colloquial style whereas the aristocrats speak in a more traditional and formal way, this highlights the very clear class divisions that exist both in the play and in the rest of Russia the this time. Anya's style of speech changes throughout the play. At the beginning she speaks in quite a childish and very formal way to a more reflective and calmly modern style, which reflects the influence of Trofimov on her. ...read more.

Middle

However, what is conveyed to the audience is Ranyevskaya's lack of understanding that change will take place regardless. Imagery Chekhov uses a lot of imagery in the play, particularly natural imagery. The Cherry Orchard represents life, more specifically the life, survival and decline of the aristocratic class. At the beginning the trees are in full blossom, whereas at the end they are being cut down and destroyed. This highlights the removal of the Upper Class to make way for a new middle class of businessmen like Lopahkin. Another example of natural imagery is in Act two. The Act opens in late afternoon sunshine. Throughout the Act, the sun gradually sets until the stage and the actors are left in darkness. This again represents the fate of Ranyevskaya and her family and the way they live at this moment, as well as showing the overall confusion and destruction of their false hope. ...read more.

Conclusion

In both cases use of idiomatic speech evokes sympathy from the audience for each character. Philosophical and Conceptual Language Written just a year before the first Russian Revolution of 1905, tensions between the lower class workers, the new middle class businessmen, and the antiquated aristocrats was heightening. As more and more people from low backgrounds worked their way up the economic ladder making more and more money, their want for power also greatened. This very much underlines the Cherry Orchard. Lopahkin too has worked his way up and made money, however at the beginning of the play he is quite an unimportant character, he is left behind by the others and apparently forgotten about. The fact that he buys the Cherry Orchard in Act three turns the tables. Ranyevskaya and her family are no longer in the position of power, Lopahkin is. This and other philosophical ideas are very much conveyed in the way both Trofimov and Anya speak, highlighting the need for change and modern thinking in order to survive. ...read more.

Related AS and A Level Brian Friel essays

his personality, and Sheridan is able to parody the typical sentimental hero with Faulkland's excessive, even obsessive behaviour throughout the play. Another example of how Sheridan uses the excessive language of a character in order to parody something that he does not agree with is Sir Lucius O'Trigger, an Irishman whose obsession with duelling is verging on the ridiculous.

The style, the way it's structured and the complexity of the language often reflect the status. We can make a comparison of Pizzaro (the Spanish leader) and Atahuallpa from act two, (the Inca god). Although they are both high in status their language is significantly different.